RE: [dhcwg] Choosing a value for option 60 (Vendor Class ID)

Chris Pearson <> Wed, 05 June 2002 21:59 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22450 for <>; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:59:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA04980 for; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 18:00:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA04685; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:57:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA04656 for <>; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22216 for <>; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:57:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 5) id 5A04127888; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 14:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from, claiming to be "" via SMTP by, id smtpdAAAyvMqM_; Wed Jun 5 14:57:35 2002
Received: by sonata with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <MJGRS12Q>; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 14:54:02 -0700
Message-ID: <EEBC1981C362D311AA230008C7E627BA07D8EB06@toccata>
From: Chris Pearson <>
To: "'Patrick Guelat'" <>
Cc: "''" <>, De Tran <>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Choosing a value for option 60 (Vendor Class ID)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 14:55:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <>


Thanks, exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for.  In our case
(targeting corporate intranets), we expect network admins to type our class
identifier into DHCP server config UI, so we're somewhat concerned that it
be "admin friendly" (terse and self-descriptive).  Of course, there's always
cut-n-paste, so maybe that's not so important.  Thanks again for the


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Guelat []
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 10:25 AM
To: Chris Pearson
Cc: ''.org'; De Tran
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Choosing a value for option 60 (Vendor Class ID)


I'm working in the Cable modem field and the DOCSIS1.1 specification
requires the use of option 60. cablemodems report their capabilities
using this option.

RFC2132 doesn't tell us how it should look like, so I can just tell you
how this is used in the DOCSIS-world, even if this is probably not what
can be called best practice. I don't know if this option is actively used
in other applications by now.

The format used in DOCSIS is in NVT ASCII consistinng of two parts:


Two fields seperated by a colon, 'docsis1.1' and an ascii-hexstring
describing the modem capabilities (TVL in TLV based).



I don't have any idea why this format was chosen, now if there was a place
to register the identifiers before the ':' it wouldn't be that bad.

Patrick Guelat, ImproWare AG Network Services, CH-4133 Pratteln
Mail: - Phone: +41 61 826 93 00 (ext: 13)

On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Chris Pearson wrote:

> Greetings to the work group!  This is my first post, so please let me know
> if I'm off-topic.
> After grepping the Web and parsing the thread "Interpretation of Option 60
> (Vendor Class ID)" from this list, I'm pretty certain I know the answer to
> this question ("no"), but in the spirit of leaving no stone unturned, I'll
> ask it anyway: Is there a standard, IANA registry, best practice or
> convention regarding the values that clients may assign to vendor class
> In the case I'm presently concerned with, the ID will be embedded in
> firmware and thus unchangeable in the field, so it's important to get it
> right.  The main goal is to reduce probability of collision with other
> vendor IDs, and more generally, to harmonize with prevailing wisdom.  (But
> re the character string vs. octet string question, I'm convinced that
> interoperation with major DHCP server implementations requires the former
> interpretation.)  Any and all comments appreciated.
> -- Chris Pearson
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list

dhcwg mailing list